Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act. Before I get into the bill itself, I want to share with the House that my riding has various communities that benefit directly from fisheries. We have the Eastern Passage area, which is a very big community focused on fishing, and then we have other communities as we move down toward the eastern shore. Down in Seaforth and then into Chezzetcook we see all kinds of fishing taking place.

This is a very important bill, because we need to make sure we restore the protections that were cut back in 2012 by the former Conservative government. One wonders why those cuts were made. It is obvious, in the three years I have been here, that the Conservatives had a lot of difficulty balancing investment in the economy and the environment, which is so crucial.

The Conservatives moved forward to make those changes. It is important to know how they made those changes. Did they consult? Did they check with the fishers? Did they consult with environmentalists? Did they consult with the various coastal areas and harbours? No, they put it into an omnibus bill so that it was hidden. There was no consultation, and they just put it in there to slide it through and make cuts to various protections for the fisheries. It affected all the coastal communities, as well as the environment, and people had no opportunity to express themselves in any way, shape, or form.

However, this government took a very different approach. We consulted with Canadians. All Canadians had the opportunity to participate in this consultation. We also had two round tables, where Canadians could participate and offer their advice, suggestions, and comments. They could share some of the key areas where they had concerns.

Furthermore, our Minister of Fisheries suggested to the permanent committee on fisheries that it could have various witnesses come in and share their opinions on this important topic. This exercise allowed for 32 more recommendations to come forward. All those consultations and the feedback from Canadians in various forums allowed the minister, his staff, and the government to put forward legislation that would solidly ensure that we are protecting our fisheries and that we have some standards and safeguards in place, but also that we can do business, which is crucial for our economy.

We have invested over $284 million in that initiative. We have invested as well in the ocean supercluster. We have invested $1.5 billion in the oceans protection plan, and $325 million in the Atlantic fisheries fund. That is a clear indication.

I would like to point out that these cuts were comparable to all of the other cuts made by the Conservative government, such as those that weakened our official language communities.

I will go back to the first point, which is the restoration of these protections to ensure that we are protecting our fish and fish habitats, which is crucial to protecting the resource. That resource is precious and important to all Canadians. We benefit from that resource, and we cannot afford not to protect it. In the House, not too long ago, I presented a petition from my constituents Blair Eavis and Walter Regan about the conservation funding for the partnership program, which is important to continue as well.

Also in the legislation are some guidelines about issuing permits. There have to be guidelines, and they are very important. If it is a major project, we have to have a permit process. If it is a small project, then we would basically have a code of practice. This would actually help the industry, because the people in the industry would know there is a process in place. If they are going to bid on projects, they would know that these steps need to be taken, and therefore they would consider that when they put out bids. That is important, but it was not in place in the process.

When the minister considers issuing those permits, he has to consider what effect that would have on the fishing industry and the habitat, and whether there are alternate ways we could do these types of projects to ensure that we are balancing the economy, our resources, and the environment, which the Conservatives never did. That is a crucial issue that the past government did not do.

The minister would also be responsible for ensuring that the fish stocks are not depleted, and if they are depleted there has to be a plan in place to replenish that industry, because it is crucial. That is what it is all about: monitoring and making sure that we are safeguarding our resource, which is crucial.

To go further and continue with the transparency that our government has put forward since the beginning, we would have an official public registry. That registry would show what plans are in place to support, protect, and safeguard our industry. That would be public, so people would be able to see the plans and give feedback on those plans, which is crucial. Also, in that public registry we would see any permits that were issued, and on what conditions.

We would also see, which is very important, any agreements that may have been signed between the federal government and the provinces or the indigenous peoples. That is crucial. There is a very important piece about indigenous peoples' rights in this legislation, which was not considered by the past government in the last 10 years prior to our being here. This is what open and transparent government will bring, and we have done that on many occasions. Of course, we also had the political financing, which is another transparency legislation that we brought forward. There is access to information as well and the mandate letters that were made public. They were made public so that people would have an opportunity to speak on those issues.

This bill, to amend the Fisheries Act, would allow us to keep the fishery strong, but also to ensure that the environment is safe for a long, long time. These changes were crucial, and I am very proud of our government's commitment and our promise to move forward on this issue. In only two years, we are here with this legislation, which is extremely important.

Mr. Speaker, I almost feel sorry for the hon. member across the way. I feel as though he is a lamb being led to slaughter. He spoke very eloquently, but he gave us so much ammunition with that speech.

We have a member whose family has benefited from a decision made by the Minister of Fisheries. The member's brother has just been given a lucrative surf clam quota valued at hundreds of millions of dollars.

The member talked about the government investing in fisheries, but the government invested in the member's family. He talked about indigenous rights and reconciliation, which is so important, and yet his brother's bid had no first nations involvement until three weeks after the winning bid was announced.

I have to ask the member how he feels about the process. When it comes to the people in Grand Bank who are going to lose their jobs, what are the member's comments to them on this whole process? His family is definitely benefiting from the minister's corrupt decision.

Mr. Speaker, the member gives me a great opportunity. He says there is a lot to talk about, and there is.

The Conservatives cut protection. Let us think about this. They cut protection of our fisheries and our habitats. That is unbelievable. On top of that, the former Conservative government was going to issue those licences while it was ignoring the indigenous people, because the Conservatives did not feel they were important.

In our government, we are here for all Canadians, including indigenous people. That is what we are doing, and we will continue to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his eloquent and very loud speech. I want to ask a question about the west coast.

Many British Columbians are very concerned about open net fish farms that are on our oceans, particularly those that are close to salmon migratory routes. The Cohen commission looked at this matter in depth. I am not sure those recommendations have been implemented by the previous government or the present government.

Many British Columbians and many Canadians want to make sure that we keep our coasts clean and that we preserve the iconic wild salmon that are such an important part of our coast and our economy as well as indigenous culture.

Could my hon. colleague tell us what his government's opinion is of the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam's promotion of the idea of moving open net ocean fish farms to closed containment systems inland? By doing that we could make sure we preserve our wild salmon, and in fact all of the species that live on our iconic west coast.

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that these issues are very important.

Our government has put forward an oceans protection plan with $1.5 billion. That is a major investment in our coastal waters. The member will also find that a part of that funding, $75 million, is for the coastal restoration fund. As well, there is $64 million that will focus on transportation, ports and traffic.

On top of that, I would have to say that our government is working closely with the British Columbia government on these issues, which are very important. We will continue to find ways to support the communities in B.C. and across Canada.

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend spoke about reconciliation with indigenous people. I know there is not very much time, but I was wondering if he could expand on their importance to the government, as well as what the previous government did on that particular subject.

Mr. Speaker, this question is a very important one. We could speak about this all day long.

We know of the challenges of indigenous people and their communities. There are challenges, for example, in education and health. As a government, we need to do much more. Our government has taken many initiatives. One has to do with water in, I believe it is, 54 communities in the last two years. There have been many investments in housing and health. Those are very important areas that we need to invest in. We should have been doing this a long time ago. It is our responsibility. We are all Canadians, and we will do it together.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by acknowledging we are on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people, and express gratitude to them for their generosity and patience. Meegwetch.

I also want to thank the hon. member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook for sharing his time with me, and acknowledge this shows a spirit of respect toward opposition benches from the current Liberal government. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak, although I still must object to the use of time allocation and reducing time for debate in this place. However, the respect shown in shortening time but still allowing a member such as me to have at least one crack in second reading to this very important legislation is appreciated. It is particularly appreciated when I stand to speak, with shared time from a Liberal member, with the intention of attacking Liberal legislation, which I have done recently with shared time.

Today is a different occasion. Bill C-68 would repair the damage done to the Fisheries Act under former budget implementation omnibus bill, Bill C-38, in the spring of 2012, as the hon. member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook was just referencing. This bill goes a long way. Within the ambit of what the Minister of Fisheries can do, it would repair the damage done by omnibus budget bill, Bill C-38, in relation to the Fisheries Act. I want to speak to that, as well as the one aspect where it would not fully repair the damage.

This is definitely a historic piece of legislation. The Fisheries Act was brought in under Sir John A. Macdonald. Canada has had a fisheries act for 150 years. That act traditionally dealt with what is constitutionally enshrined as federal jurisdiction over fish, and some people may wonder where the environment landed in the Constitution of Canada and the British North America Act. Where was the environment? The fish are federal. The water is provincial if it is fresh water, and federal if it is ocean water, so there has always been a mixed jurisdiction over the environment.

Over fish, there has been no question. Fish are federal. In the early 1980s, this act received a significant improvement, which was to recognize that fish move around and they cannot be protected without protecting their habitat. The Fisheries Act was modernized with a real degree of environmental protection. It had always been a strong piece of environmental legislation, because if we protect fish then we tend to protect everything around them.

In this case, the Fisheries Act was improved in the early eighties by a former minister of fisheries, who by accident of history, happened to be the father of the current Minister of Fisheries. It was the Right. Hon. Roméo LeBlanc. We use the term “right honourable” because he went on to be our Governor General. He amended the Fisheries Act in the 1980s to include protection of fish habitat, requiring a permit from the federal Minister of Fisheries if that habitat was either temporarily or permanently harmed or damaged. This piece of legislation is the significant pillar upon which much of Canada's environmental regulation rested.

What happened in Bill C-38 in the spring of 2012 was a travesty that remains in the annals of parliamentary history as the single worst offence against environmental legislation and protection by any government ever. It was followed up with a second omnibus budget bill in the fall of 2012, Bill C-45, which took an axe to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. In the spring, Bill C-38 repealed the Environmental Assessment Act and replaced it with a bogus act, which I will return to and discuss. Bill C-38 also repealed the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, the National Roundtable on Environment and the Economy, and gutted the Fisheries Act.

Rather than go on about that, the hon. member who was just speaking referenced the changes made. I can tell people some of the changes that were made, and I was so pleased to see them repealed. When one opens a copy of Bill C-68, the first thing one sees is subclause 1(1), “The definitions commercial, Indigenous and recreational in subsection 2(1) of the Fisheries Act are repealed.” This is not a scientific thing. This is what Bill C-38 did to our Fisheries Act. Fish were no longer fish. They were only fish if they were commercial, indigenous, or recreational. That language came straight from a brief from industry. It did not come from civil servants within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It came from the Canadian Electricity Association. That is repealed.

This bill would bring back protections for habitat. It goes back to looking at some of the foundational pieces of how the Fisheries Act is supposed to work, and then it goes farther.

I have to say I was really surprised and pleased to find in the bill, for the first time ever, that the Fisheries Act will now prohibit the taking into captivity of whales. That was a very nice surprise. It is proposed section 23.1. I asked the minister the other day in debate if he would be prepared to expand this section with amendments, because over on the Senate side, the bill that was introduced by retired Senator Wilfred Moore and is currently sponsored by Senator Murray Sinclair, and I would be the sponsor of this bill if it ever makes it to the House, Bill S-203, would not only ban the taking of whales into captivity but the keeping of whales in captivity. I am hoping when this bill gets to the fisheries committee. We might be able to expand that section and amend it so that we can move ahead with the protection of whales.

This bill is also forward-looking by introducing more biodiversity provisions and the designation of areas as ecologically sensitive, work that can continue to expand the protection of our fisheries.

I will turn to where there are gaps. Because I completely support this bill, while I do hope for a few amendments, they come down to being tweaks.

Where does this bill fail to repair the damage of Bill C-38? It is in a part that is beyond the ability of the Minister of Fisheries to fix. That is the part about why Harper aimed at the Fisheries Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and the Environmental Assessment Act.

There was not random violence in this vandalism; it was quite focused. It was focused on destroying the environmental assessment process so that we would no longer be reviewing 4,000 projects a year. Of those 4,000 projects a year that were reviewed under our former Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, most of them, about 95% of them, were reviewed through screenings that were paper exercises, that did not engage hearings, and so forth. However, it did mean that, at a very preliminary level, if there was a problem with a project, a red flag could go up, and it could be booted up for further study.

There is a reason that the Fisheries Act habitat provisions were repealed. They were one of the sections listed in our former Environmental Assessment Act under what was called the “law list”, where a minister giving a permit under section 35 of our former Fisheries Act automatically triggered that the decision was subject to an environmental assessment.

Similarly, why did the former government take a hatchet to the Navigable Waters Protection Act? Like the Fisheries Act, it is an act we have had around for a long time, since 1881. It was not an act that had impeded the development of Canada or we would never have had a railroad. Since 1881, we have had the Navigable Waters Protection Act. The previous government took a real axe to it. The current Minister of Transport has gone a long way toward fixing it under one portion of Bill C-69.

This is why. Navigable waters permits also were a trigger under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Do members see where I am going here? This was synchronized action. It was not random.

The current government has pledged to fix all of the damage done by the previous government to environmental laws. Where the failure to fix things is evident is in what is called the “impact assessment act” in Bill C-69. It has abandoned the concept of a law list altogether. It has abandoned the concept of having permits and environmental assessments required whenever federal money is engaged. In other words, the Harper imprint of going from 4,000 projects reviewed a year to a couple of dozen will remain the law of the land without significant improvement to Bill C-69. In particular, the decisions the Minister of Fisheries makes should be subject to an EA, just as the decisions of the Minister of Transport should be subject.

In my last minute, I want to turn our attention to something I hope the Minister of Fisheries will take up next, because he is doing a great job. I hope he will take up looking at open-pen salmon aquaculture. It must end. It is a threat to our wild salmon fishery on the Pacific coast. It is a threat to the depleted wild Atlantic salmon stocks on the Atlantic coast, where I am originally from. There is no Atlantic salmon fishery because it has been destroyed. However, there are still Atlantic salmon, which could restore themselves if they did not have to compete with the escapement of Atlantic salmon from fish farms in Atlantic Canada, and the destruction of habitat by those farms. On the west coast, these are not even indigenous species that are escaping and threatening our wild salmon.

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the member for both her excellent knowledge of the environment and also of process. She started out talking about process and time allocation, and I would like to ask her, because of her expertise in that area, for a solution.

We are sent to Parliament to accomplish. There is so much that has to be done in the year, and along with dilatory motions and everything, there has to be a way to get everything in. What some legislatures in the world use is programming, but there did not seem to be an appetite in opposition parties for that solution. Therefore, I wonder what the member would suggest, in light of the fact that in this and previous Parliaments, a number of dilatory motions can stop the agenda.

How can any government get its program through Parliament, on important bills like this, within a year, in the time it has?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Yukon for a very useful question because I would love to see us fix the problem. I talked to colleagues of mine in the Parliament at Westminster. There is one Green Party member there, Caroline Lucas, leader of the Greens of the U.K. and Wales. She said do not go for that programming thing because it really does fast-track bills without enough time for debate.

What we should do is open up the process here. The hon. leader of the government in the House and the whip get frustrated and say they will have to bring in time allocation because they are not going to get the bill through. What is happening is due to the secretiveness of the meetings of House leaders and whips. They are trying to figure out how to schedule something. If those meetings were open, imagine if I could go to them. Imagine if any member could go. They could say, “Our side isn't even being reasonable here. We ought to be able to provide a list of how many speakers we have on the bill”.

Another very helpful thing would be if we followed the rules that we still have, but which are now viewed as no longer in effect, such as that no member be allowed to give a speech that is a written speech. If members had to come here and give a speech on what they knew about the bill without notes, I think we would not find so many people at the last minute willing to stand up and give a speech on the matter before this place, and we might find we could move along more expeditiously, as they do in the Parliament at Westminster, where the only people speaking are those intimately knowledgeable of the question at hand.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my neighbour from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her speech. As she knows, my riding is home to the iconic Cowichan River, which is a designated heritage river in British Columbia and home to salmon habitat.

I have handed a lot of petitions to the government on the status of the Lake Cowichan weir, which is responsible for managing flow rates into the Cowichan River. The government has acknowledged that summer low flows in the Cowichan River are a threat to fish and fish habitat, but there does not seem to be any explicit legal protection for environmental flows in the bill. I would like to hear her comments on that.

Mr. Speaker, the issue around environmental flows is one place we might be able to see this legislation amended. However, even as we are currently looking at it, on the question of protection of habitat when an artificial weir, such as the one at Lake Cowichan, and the flow rates have the effect of threatening the salmon population, I think the Minister of Fisheries would still have the power to act to protect those salmon.

However, the introduction of the term “environment flows” would clarify the matter, and I certainly would support it.

Mr. Speaker, does my hon. colleague have any evidence where the harmful cuts, in the words that are being put forth, or the changes that were made in 2012 to the Fisheries Act, made by the previous government, caused harmful destruction to fish and fish habitat?

Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity to address the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George since he returned from an illness, and I am so happy to see him back on the floor of the House.

I can give many examples from just my own riding. We had clam beds on Salt Spring Island that were being over-harvested and habitat was not being protected. When residents of my community contacted Fisheries and Oceans, it said it could not get there and do anything about it, and that it could not protect that habitat anymore. Every single fisheries officer within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans was also given a pink slip, so they did not have the capacity to go out and help.

I heard from some of my halibut fishing constituents that they were having trouble with habitat issues. It was widespread and quite disastrous, so we need to bring back the law and the individual officers who enforce the law.

For the benefit of all hon. members, I will let members know that we have crossed the five-hour mark after the first round of speeches on the bill that is before the House. Consequently, all speeches from this point onward will be limited to 10 minutes with five minutes for questions and comments.

Bill C-68, from a policy perspective, is another piece of unnecessary legislation aimed at making Canadians feel good. It is filled with fluff. It is all about pandering to environmental groups. It is all about making sure that those that backed the Liberals in the 2015 election get their due, much as what we heard earlier when the member of Parliament for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook spoke.

If those who are in the audience were falling asleep previously, they should stay tuned, because I promise it is about to get more lively in the short period of time that I have to speak.

The member of Parliament for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook talked about how proud he is of the government investing in fisheries and investing in areas within his region. His own family has just received a lucrative surf clam quota worth hundreds of millions of dollars. People heard that correctly. I am looking right at the camera and I am going to say that again. The brother of the Liberal member of Parliament for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook just received a lucrative surf clam quota worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and all on a bid that has lots of questions about it.

Therefore, I would beg to differ in terms of some of the points that have been put forward about being open and transparent, and how the minister seems to be doing the right thing. Well, he is spending a lot of money; there is no two ways about it. He is spending a lot of money, but is value going to come out of that money? Who is benefiting from the money that is being spent? I would hesitate to say that Bill C-68 is going to be the stopgap for the changes the government is putting forth that it says are going to have such a profound impact on our waterways and our fisheries.

I sit on the fisheries committee. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Canadian Coast Guard has been before us numerous times. We heard just last week that our northern cod is at near decimated levels. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Canadian Coast Guard likes to throw money at things, but it does not like to throw money at things that are going to have an impact on those who are in the communities. It has not done anything that is going to help create more fish so that we have fish not only for today, but for the future.

The Liberals say that former Prime Minister Harper absolutely gutted the Fisheries Act. I will be the first to admit that the Fisheries Act has been around for 150 years. Maybe it needed some modernization, but the changes the government has put forward are more fluff than anything else.

As a matter of fact, numerous witnesses came before the committee, including academics, environmental groups, or NGOs that are a steady stream into the minister's office. We had local fishers and people in those communities who said that with the Conservatives at least they knew they had the ear of the ministers. Now they have to go through the NGOs to get to the ministers, because the ministers place greater importance on the NGOs than on those who actually matter the most, the communities and the Canadians that the policy impacts the most.

It is interesting that the member of Parliament for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Fisheries stood up to talk about the surf clam and said that it was all about reconciliation, yet the winning bid had no first nations, no multiple first nations partners. This was a critical component of the bid criteria. There were no first nations partners, until after the bid was announced.

Three weeks later, there was an announcement of the first nations that were there. The bid actually included just placeholders, which said, “Hey, trust us, we'll get that done”. Guess what? The brother of that member of Parliament, or the group that got the bid, was not even incorporated. It was not even a legal entity. It did not have a boat, a vessel, and did not have a facility to do this.

This leads people to believe that this just does not smell right. As a matter of fact, it sounds very corrupt. Therefore, it is very rich to have that member of Parliament stand in the House and preach about his open and transparent government that he is so proud of. Obviously, he is proud of it, because his family is benefiting from a quota worth hundreds of millions of dollars. That is unacceptable.

As we know, it is open and transparent if one is a Liberal insider or family member, and one would get the appointment. If one is a Liberal insider or family member, one would get the job. If one is a Liberal insider or family member, guess what? One would get the quota. That is what we are seeing.

Today, with Bill C-68, it is interesting that people are saying that Prime Minister Harper absolutely decimated the fishery. I will tell members that this is more of an attack on Prime Minister Harper by folks who dislike him than it is on his policy. That is shameful. Not one witness who came to our committee to testify on this could demonstrate any loss of fish habitat because of what was done in 2012, and that includes academics, environmental groups, fishers, and industry experts. Conservatives want to make sure that we have the appropriate balance between the economy and the environment. We do not want to see our rivers, lakes, and streams ruined.

I am a hunter and a fisher. My family has farmed, logged, fished, and hunted our property in the Cariboo Chilcotin for generations. We want to make sure it is there for future generations. It is shameful how we get this holier-than-thou attitude when all the Liberals are doing is pandering to special interest groups.

Members can tell I am a little heated, and I will tell them why. I was in Grand Bank, Newfoundland, earlier this week and I talked with Edgar, Brenda, Barbara, Bernice, Barry, Tom, and Kevin. I talked with people who are impacted by the policy decisions that the minister has made, which impact that community. With 300 years of fishing history, they have had their ups and downs, but they have had consistent economic viability. They have been okay for about 27 years in terms of the surf clam fishery.

This arbitrary decision to take away 25% of the quota from that community is not acceptable. They are going to see job losses. Edgar told us that he does not want to go on EI. He wants a job. He had 52 weeks of work this year, and with this decision, it looks like he will lose 17 weeks of work. He does not want EI. He wants to work. We heard that time and time again.

Shamefully, it seems that the minister is more intent on looking after his Liberal family and friends than the families of Grand Bank. It is disappointing and, frankly, it is shameful.

Mr. Speaker, a few years back I was visiting Washington state. In Puget Sound, I had the opportunity to take a whale sightseeing tour. We followed a pod of orcas from Puget Sound all the way to within sight of Vancouver Island. It was impressive to watch these mammals travel this incredible distance.

In my part of the world, in Niagara, 20 minutes from my home, there is a place called Marineland, which has an orca in a very small tank. This piece of legislation speaks to that, and would prevent individuals from capturing whales like orcas for captivity. This is a practice that needs to end.

I wonder if the hon. member could comment on that practice and on what he and his party think about that.

Mr. Speaker, there is no two ways about it. We live in a beautiful province. It is adjacent to Washington state. The waters are pristine. We have some of the most iconic views. When we hosted the world for the 2010 Winter Olympics, the world could see what Vancouver and British Columbia really have to offer.

I too have gone on whale watching trips and I agree that they are majestic and beautiful beasts. We should do whatever we can to save them.

I would like to pose a question to my colleague. Perhaps he could tell us how he feels about the brother of one of his Liberal colleagues getting a lucrative surf clam quota worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague in regard to this fishery contract. In light of Shawinigate and the sponsorship scandal, I am a little concerned that the governing party is back to its old tricks.

I would like my colleague to please explain how this consortium that he described was able to get around the requirement that indigenous people be involved. I would be interested in knowing how that was achieved.

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. Many people have questions regarding it, including first nation groups that actually submitted a bid. First nations submitted a bid and were unsuccessful and yet the successful group did not have any first nations in it. It only had placeholders. People in that group said not to worry about it, because they would get them after they won the bid, and that is what happened. There are a lot of questions.

The minister and the Prime Minister said how dare we pit first nations against non-first nations. This decision has nothing to do with reconciliation and more to do with just looking after Liberal friends and family. It is shameful, because many first nations put in bids and were unsuccessful. However, the group that won the bid had no first nations involved until three weeks after the winning bid was announced.

Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member, I could not believe the audacity of the Liberal Party in having the member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook stand in the House and speak to this issue given the fact that his brother was just given hundreds of millions of dollars in quota.

The hon. member was in Newfoundland this week. He spoke generally about the impact that this has, about people wanting to work rather than being on employment insurance, and the Liberal Party's intention to make the the employment insurance system the largest employer in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell the member exactly what we talked about. In Grand Bank we talked to a lady who said that people there have lost brothers, sons, fathers, uncles, and grandfathers in the fishery. The community has 300 years of fishery history. The scars of those losses go straight through the community. The minister has opened up those wounds all over again and has placed the community of Grand Bank in uncertain times.

I want to thank my hon. colleague for allowing me to bring the voices of the people of Grand Bank to the floor of the House once again.

Mr. Speaker, it is always great to rise in this House to talk about an issue that is so important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and certainly to the people from St. John's East.

Amending the Fisheries Act to bring it into modern times would provide the flexibility we need to make sure that we not only provide for the care and protection of marine mammals, such as porpoises, whales, and dolphins, but take into account indigenous concerns and make sure that our act and our fisheries protections takes their traditional knowledge and beliefs into account. It is also important that we provide some framework so that Canadians can better understand the decisions the minister will be making and how they will be made. It is important to make sure that there are advisory panels to consult on fees to make sure that people who are licensees under the Fisheries Act, who are engaged in the fishery, are appropriately paying into the system, but not overpaying into the system, and that when we administer the rights and responsibilities with respect to our offshore resources, stakeholders appropriately participate in that. The advisory council would be a great way to do that.

We also have to make sure that we meet our international obligations on fish habitat. We need to do the good work to protect the coastal waters of Canada under our international obligation under the Aichi target, which is 10% by 2020. To protect these areas, we need to make changes to the act so that we can protect fish habitat with respect to works, undertakings, or activities that may result in the death of fish or the harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction of fish habitat. In the case of Newfoundland and Labrador, this is obviously a very sensitive topic. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians care about the protection and growth of the biomass of fish off our coasts. At the same time, we need to make sure that we can undertake our enterprise so that we can maintain the high standard of living Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and indeed all Canadians, enjoy. This legislation would require that we both maintain access to the productive areas of our coasts and at the same time identify areas that are ecologically important. There is going to be a balance that needs to be struck.

My understanding is that the fisheries ministry has, through various mechanisms that already exist, hived off about 7.75% of Canada's waters for protection, meeting our target of 5% by December 31, 2017. However, there is still some way to go.

The member from Prince Rupert will have a chance to examine the changes we are proposing to the Fisheries Act in committee after, hopefully, we pass this here today. I encourage all members to vote in favour of it at this stage. The changes would allow the government to move forward and protect those next 2.25% or more of our coastal areas so that we can protect these ecologically important areas. We can protect things like cold-water coral off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador or dogfish off the southern coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. We can make sure that our ecologically protected areas are interlinked so that species can travel safely through them, and important breeding grounds and important transitory areas for different marine mammals are protected.

Yesterday the minister made an important announcement about protecting right whales. It is a scary prospect that it is possible that the world may lose yet another species this year, the right whale. We saw a couple of weeks ago the loss of the last male white rhino, protected at Ol Pejeta, in Kenya. Here we are now in a situation where people are very concerned about the reproductive capacity of right whales in Atlantic waters as they pass through the Gulf of St. Lawrence through very important areas for industrial development in Canada. At the same time, we need protections such as the Minister of Transport is undertaking under the Transportation Act and also that the Minister of Fisheries is doing. The changes we are proposing would allow them to do more and do it in the right way and provide a period of time in which we could make quick decisions to save species.

I look forward to the protections that are coming. When oil and gas proponents met with me earlier this year, such as British Petroleum, for instance, on their desire to do offshore exploratory drilling off the coast of Nova Scotia, there was some concern that their ships, drill rigs, and whatnot were going to be expected to move at a slower pace through those waters.

I fully applaud the foresight of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency in including those conditions, because now we are seeing that this is going to be an important factor not only for oil and gas exploration but for other transportation in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. It is similar to what happened last year, is my understanding. It is heartwarming and good to see the government of the day putting in place the mechanisms, regulatory policy, and now legislation that will help Canada meet its international targets to protect cetaceans.

The 45 days to address the proper management and control of the fisheries and conservation and to protect fishing is obviously very important in Newfoundland and Labrador. There is a strongly held belief, not always supported by the science, that cod is coming back. We see it coming back in Norway. We see it coming back in the North Sea. Iceland's cod fishery is recovering, yet Canada's cod fishery remains a bit stagnant. It is important to have hope. It is important to make sure that the science is done.

I applaud the government's earlier decision to hire more fishery scientists in Newfoundland and Labrador to help create a plan to see the regrowth of the cod stock. However, as we are seeing this year, the science does not support a regrowth. Cod still finds itself in the critical zone. To get back to the point where we can have a sustainable amount of biomass so that cod fishing can be undertaken safely, with the preservation of the resource, and historical amounts of cod can be taken and can support the infrastructure that is needed, requires that we be patient. We need to do the necessary science. It is good to see that the minister will be provided with special tools under the act to take special steps to put a halt to overfishing if the science deems it required.

Protecting, preserving, and restoring our environment should be key principles of the Fisheries Act to make sure that Canadians trust the act. Not all Canadians, when they think about the fisheries, think about them the same way Newfoundlanders do. I need that empathy for the environmentalists. When they look at the fisheries, they see that perhaps they have a larger impact on our environment than I do, but it is important that all Canadians have confidence that our fisheries are being undertaken in a sustainable way. I know that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have faith that they are and that more could be done. They have faith that the government is doing the right thing by putting scientists in place. They like that the focus is on the fisheries and that the Minister of Fisheries is taking this time to propose new legislation to bring it into the 21st century.

We do not want to return to the previous version of the Fisheries Act. We want to make the law even better than it was before. Through this process, it is not just something that has arisen from the imagination of the minister. It came after thousands of consultations undertaken by the minister and his department. All Newfoundlanders and Labradorians find this to be of critical importance to our future.

When the previous minister was in Newfoundland and Labrador early in this government's tenure, all Newfoundland and Labrador MPs were invited to participate in the consultations at that time. Those consultations have continued. People feel that their voices are being heard by the government, but not always, perhaps, by the department. Providing this link between Canadians, government ministries, and departments is important for confidence to be created. These changes will allow both environmentalists and people who are engaged in the fishery to have more confidence. They will allow us to meet our international obligations with respect to the preservation of 10% of our territory. They are long overdue.

Without further ado, I would like to encourage all members of the House to support the bill at second reading and get it to committee, where people can answer some of the questions my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George had earlier. We can have this improved for future generations of Canadians and for the preservation and growth of our resource.